Memeorandum

July 13, 2014

Back On The Border, Or, In Another Life Obama Would Be Backing Open Borders

The WaPo weighs Obama's disengagement with the border crisis as well as the political crosscurrents sweeping him under:

Border crisis scrambling the politics of immigration policy

Until now, the politics of immigration have been seen as a no-lose proposition for President Obama and the Democrats. If they could get a comprehensive overhaul passed, they would win. And if Republicans blocked it, the GOP would further alienate crucial Hispanic and moderate voters.

But with the current crisis on the Southwest border, where authorities have apprehended tens of thousands of unaccompanied Central American children since October, that calculus may be shifting.

Republicans and even some Democrats have accused Obama of being insufficiently engaged in a calamity that many say he should have seen coming.

They highlight the politically challenging and contradictory position in which Obama finds himself (yes, that is a passive voice tribute to Obama...):

Obama’s goal now is to make clear to adults in Central America that there is no payoff for sending their children on the dangerous journey northward, said Cecilia Muñoz, the White House domestic policy director. “He feels intensely a responsibility to prevent an even greater humanitarian crisis,” she said.

Oh, stop it, you're killing me...

That, however, means speeding the deportation of most of those who have already arrived, which many in Obama’s own party are resisting.

“It is contrary to everything we stand for as a people to try to summarily send children back to death . . . in a place where drug gangs are the greatest threat to stability, rule of law and democratic institutions in this hemisphere,” Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley (D) said in Nashville, where the National Governors Association was meeting.

Rep. Beto O’Rourke (D-Tex.) agreed in an interview: “I would like to see him place greater emphasis on the interests of these children who are refugees from extreme violence and instability in their home countries” instead of “an acceleration of the deportation process at the expense of these children.”

So in actuality Obama has to persuade Central American parents to keep their kids at home even though they will ultimately be welcomed into the US if their parents do choose to send them north. Good luck messaging that.

The WaPo includes this passage describing an Obama meeting with immigration advocates:

Two weeks ago, with Republicans criticizing the administration’s handling of the border crisis, Obama gathered advocates for another private meeting at the White House.

The session grew heated when some of them criticized the administration’s tough posture toward the children on the border, according to several people who attended.

Marshall Fitz, immigration policy director at the Center for American Progress, said that Obama, a former community organizer, told the group that “in another life, I’d be on the other side of the table.”

Another life?

Compassionate progressives are surprised:

But O’Rourke added that he has been surprised by the anger he has heard toward the immigrants from many of his El Paso constituents, who “feel like we can’t take care of everyone, and these children and their families are gaming the system.”

Gaming the system? Really?

The WaPo reminisces about Team Obama's competence:

The emergency has also renewed questions about the administration’s competence, reminiscent of those raised during the 2010 Gulf of Mexico oil spill, last year’s botched rollout of the health-care law and more recent revelations of mismanagement that jeopardized care of patients at veterans hospitals.

The good news is the VA debacle is off the front page.

The WapO provides a "Where Was Obama" wrap-up:

There is also the question of whether the Obama administration ignored the signs as the emergency was developing.

As far back as May 2012, Texas Gov. Rick Perry (R) warned Obama in a letter that “there is a surge of unaccompanied illegal minors entering the United States. Apart from being part of an obvious humanitarian crisis, these unaccompanied illegal minors have left the federal government scrambling to triage the results of its failed border security and immigration policies.”

At last week’s governors meeting, Iowa Gov. Terry Branstad (R) said the administration was “asleep at the switch.”

A Republican Governor can be dismissed as a partisan hack. However...

Some border-state Democrats have joined the criticism.

“The numbers have spiked recently, but this is not a new development,” said Rep. Ron Barber (D-Ariz.). “It seems to me that the administration just wasn’t paying close attention and could have acted sooner.”

Barber noted that 30 percent of apprehensions of illegal immigrants are made in his Tucson-area district, as are up to 47 percent of cartel drug-running arrests. His constituents, who already live in fear for their safety, are now seeing law enforcement agents diverted to child care.

“They’re doing a great job, but it’s not their job, and it’s allowed the front line to be thinned even further,” Barber added.

And:

Yet even some Democrats say Obama has not appeared to be as engaged as they would like.

When the president made a fundraising swing through Texas without going to the scene of the crisis, Rep. Henry Cuellar (D-Tex.) complained on MSNBC: “He can’t even go 242 miles to the Texas border? Border community leaders want to see him down there on the border. And I think the optics and the substance of it is that he should show up at the border.”

Comments

While many erroneously claim that the Fourteenth Amendment guarantees citizenship to anyone born on American soil, the reality is that is not the law and has never been the law.

Current immigration law—found at 8 U.S.C. § 1401(a)—specifies that a baby born on American soil to (1) a foreign ambassador, (2) head of state, or (3) foreign military prisoner is not an American citizen.

But if the view promoted by the Left that citizenship is automatic (and parroted by many in the middle and even on the Right who have not seriously studied the issue) is correct, then those three exceptions would be unconstitutional.

The debate over birthright citizenship turns on what the Citizenship Clause means by the words “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.”

There are numerous and growing media reports that this event was orchestrated by Obama himself in order to force amnesty. Does it make sense? Of course not. But Obama has shown before that he does not think right. For example he ridicules the GOP to get their cooperation. Patterico is reporting that Mexico has given Central America a free pass and is cooperating with the human traffickers. The Last Refuge is reporting that prior to the Mexican agreement a meeting was held by the Hispanic Caucus to start the flood.
It has now backfired, but Obama has tied his own hands. So he plays golf. Not a smidgeon on common sense.

I have wondered what it the 2008 law says the "children" need to be released prior to their court date.

The loon Arpaio:

“As I mentioned we have four thousand illegal immigrants in the jails that I run, including a tent city jail. So why not put up tents, at least for those that 15, 16, 17 and put them all in tents. In fact when you look at how they are being incarcerated by the federal government my tents are Hilton hotels comparing to what they’re doing down there. But for six years the Department of Justice has been investigating me. They should be investigating what’s going on right now.”

Doubtful. The change would be challenged in court and the change would be struck down. And would the administration even sign a change or the Senate pass a change. The change would also be demagogued as wild-eyed Reps want to send these poor children back to narco traffickers and condemn them to a life of sex slavery. And any other hook in the volumes of immigration law would be found to stall the process.

Holder said that he and President Obama are treated differently than their predecessors.

“There's a certain level of vehemence, it seems to me, that's directed at me [and] directed at the president,” Holder said. “You know, people talking about taking their country back. … There's a certain racial component to this for some people. I don’t think this is the thing that is a main driver, but for some there's a racial animus.”

Asked about his controversial comments from 2009, in which he called the United States a “nation of cowards” when it comes to race, Holder stood firm.

“I wouldn't walk away from that speech,” Holder said. “I think we are still a nation that is too afraid to confront racial issues,” rarely engaging “one another across the color line [to] talk about racial issues.”

I'm quite willing to give Janet Reno some of the credit for the stench emanating from the wholly corrupt DoJ. There's no doubt in my mind she planted many of the loathsome weeds choking out any honesty there. I'll decline Holder's RaceCard by noting that the stench of his corruption would not be any sweeter if he were emerald green.

Reno should be cooling her enormous clodhoppers in some club Fed for sending a couple tanks crashing into a house to "save the chirrun" by roasting them. Not to mention trying to railroad a standup Florida citizen for bogus child abuse charges. Floridians responded to that by trucking her gawky ass in the donk primary for governor in the most pleasing primary result until Forrest Gump's.

I'll give soccer one massive thumbs up over football; the World Cup halftime show consists of....uh.....pretty much nothing, instead of a three hour extravaganza of wrinkled rockers on crutches and IVs, assorted opening act nitwits, assorted nitwit commercials and a general fog of really bad taste and amazement that every new year's was somehow worse than lasts's.

Sorry to read that, MM. I know you didn't request advice, but some has already been offered. As one of the divorced members here, I would like to offer perhaps a contrary view.

Some have advised retaining the best divorce lawyer you can find. This may indeed be a good idea, but it wasn't a good idea in my case, and let me tell you why.

At the beginning of our divorce odyssey, my ex and I hired "good" lawyers. (This generally means lawyers who charge between $200 and $400 per hour.)

After the initial "free" consultation, you have a meeting with your lawyer. Say it takes an hour, and let's just assume both lawyers get $300/hr. The meeting costs $300.

After the meeting, your lawyer writes a letter to the other lawyer. He charges $300 to write the letter.

Your husband's lawyer receives and reads the letter. He charges a half hour for that, or $150. Then your husband has an hour-long meeting with his lawyer, costing him $300. His lawyer writes a response to your lawyer's letter, charging $300 to do so. Your lawyer reads the letter, charging $150 to do so. Then he calls you to advise you of the response, charging $150 for the call.

At this point, you and your husband have racked up $1,650 in legal fees. A single letter was written and responded to.

After my ex and I spent around $10,000 of marital assets in this manner, we decided to discuss some issues without the help of our lawyers. All told, we did fork over around $20,000 to two lawyers before we both fired our attorneys and ended up negotiating an agreeable settlement in the office of my new (and still current) attorney and our accountant.

(Someone else advised securing bank accounts, etc. In my experience, only a fool would try to steal marital assets. Your husband will be required to produce all manner of bank and financial statements.)

Btw, my ex and I are still great friends and have worked together for the past 15 years to raise our children, together. This was only possible after we came to the agreement that our lawyers were milking us for legal fees that could have otherwise gone to ourselves, children's education, etc.

I think it's possible to negotiate a fair settlement, splitting all marital assets and providing an income for you as well, without the bitter battle that lawyers can instigate in their own interests.

BERLIN – German police allowed an anti-Israel protester to climb inside a police car and shout slogans including "child murderer Israel" and "Allahu akbar!" — Arabic for "God is Great!" — through a police megaphone, a spokeswoman for Frankfurt's police said Sunday.

Police let the protester use the megaphone during a Free Gaza demonstration Saturday because he had offered to calm down a protest that had turned violent, spokeswoman Virginie Wegner told The Associated Press.

The Hill does not present it this way, but the realization is beginning to dawn on the donor class of Democrats:

The nonprofit group born from President Obama's reelection campaign said Friday it had raised $3.87 million during the second quarter of 2014.

The group's fundraising effort saw 106,768 individual contributions for an average of $38.40 per donation.

But the haul was the worst quarter in terms of both overall cash raised and the total number of donors since the organization was founded following the 2012 election. By contrast, over the first three months of this year, OFA raised $5.88 million through 124,000 donations

This is precisely why Zero has been so anxious to try to rev up Democrats, he knows they are quite close to throwing in the towel.

While I agree with Jane, the major reason I recommend hiring the best divorce lawyer MM can afford ASAP is her vulnerable financial position and the apparent difference in earning ability between her and her spouse.

IMO, from what few facts I know, she needs competent advice as to her options, and her bargaining position in an agreement or a mediated settlement so she doesn't sell herself short. A 65 year old female eking out a living on ebay and is abandoned after 35 years of marriage should be able to command a settlement that guarantees her reasonable financial security from here on out. Things would be much different when both spouses are younger or are essentially financially independent.

Since, unlike MM, we don't know what Mr Marple is like we don't really have any idea if an amicable arrangement is possible.

It is always easier, and almost always cheaper, to fire a lawyer when you determine you don't need him anymore than it is to hire one to repair things when you determine you should have had one in the first place.

What a thoughtful post, Ext. I wish I had had the benefit of your wisdom 40-some years ago when my first marriage ended. We wasted so much money and emotion over battles that were trivial, at least in the long view. Hard to remain level headed though, while also dealing with the anguish of divorce.

I'm sorry for your pain, Miss Marple. I hope your children and grandchildren are a comfort to you.

Beasts, the tournament was better than average. Today's final was exceptional. Either team could have won in regular time, then again in extra time. Skills displayed were simply awesome, though Steinshweiger obviously dove on 13 of 14 falls. I'm glad it was decided on the field instead of a shoot out. As it happens, I rooted for Argentina today -- they had plenty of chances to win it but missed by that much.

IMO, from what few facts I know, she needs competent advice as to her options, and her bargaining position in an agreement or a mediated settlement so she doesn't sell herself short.

I support that, as long as the lawyer who gives the advice is not the one who gets retained, and that he or she knows, going in, that they aren't going to be able to send their kids to Harvard on your dime.

(The first thing they do is ask questions to determine your net worth. Purely in your own interest, of course.)

Give advice as to the options and bargaining position. Offer to be available for questions going forward. Charge a fair fee for that, but that's it. No restraining orders or knocks in the night by the County Sheriff with an order to confiscate all firearms, or other bullshit moves intended to piss off the other side into retaliating.

@henry: The goal by Goetz (sp?) was a beautiful feat of athleticism. Not as pretty as the one from the Columbian kid earlier in the tournament, but, seeing those displays makes me sincerely appreciate the sport.

My enthusiasm for futbol rapidly diminished when my daughters stopped playing after HS. But I enjoyed watching the US women's olympic teams, and this World Cup. With the exception of the Brazilian cave in after they lost their star, I thought the quality of play and the all out effort was splendid. But I still probably won't be watching much of it until the next world cup.

Be careful about extrapolating from domestic divorces to a situation where the person suing is not physically present in the US, chose to inform MM after he left US jurisdiction but clearly knew this while he was here, and may have an employer with no real jurisdictional presence in the US.

She needs good experienced advice initially to assess where she is and what the real ability will be long term to enforce any agreement that is consented to.

I feel that MM has extended us the trust of a private family circumstance and JOMers have extended sympathy, support, and heartfelt advice. I would feel uncomfortable if her personal circumstance became a topic of discussion.

Perhaps we could return to just being here any time she wants us and help her otherwise by carrying on as we do about other issues to help her get some well-deserved respite.

One problem with the Reynolds article. He is 100% correct that we are dealing with a global nomenklatura intent on political power to gut individual autonomy in the traditional sense.

But why on earth call Greece a capitalist country. The poor woman had a problem because Greece is operating as a License Raj. That's not capitalism. It's about preventing it for the benefit of the public sector.

It is very important in what jib accurately calls a 2nd Civil War to be careful about the language used. We are going to have to use the narrative and good examples of why what is being pushed has had and likely will continue to have those same consequences to educate LIVs on why what is being sought harms them in the long term as well. I would argue it is harming them now. They simply do not perceive it yet.